We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Evaluation of Sensor Technology to Detect Fall Risk and Prevent Falls in Acute Care.
BACKGROUND: Sensor technology that dynamically identifies hospitalized patients' fall risk and detects and alerts nurses of high-risk patients' early exits out of bed has potential for reducing fall rates and preventing patient harm. During Phase 1 (August 2014-January 2015) of a previously reported performance improvement project, an innovative depth sensor was evaluated on two inpatient medical units to study fall characteristics. In Phase 2 (April 2015-January 2016), a combined depth and bed sensor system designed to assign patient fall probability, detect patient bed exits, and subsequently prevent falls was evaluated.
METHODS: Fall detection depth sensors remained in place on two medicine units; bed sensors used to detect patient bed exits were added on only one of the medicine units. Fall rates and fall with injury rates were evaluated on both units.
RESULTS: During Phase 2, the designated evaluation unit had 14 falls, for a fall rate of 2.22 per 1,000 patient-days-a 54.1% reduction compared with the Phase 1 fall rate. The difference in rates from Phase 1 to Phase 2 was statistically significant (z = 2.20; p = 0.0297). The comparison medicine unit had 30 falls-a fall rate of 4.69 per 1,000 patient-days, representing a 57.9% increase as compared with Phase 1.
CONCLUSION: A fall detection sensor system affords a level of surveillance that standard fall alert systems do not have. Fall prevention remains a complex issue, but sensor technology is a viable fall prevention option.
METHODS: Fall detection depth sensors remained in place on two medicine units; bed sensors used to detect patient bed exits were added on only one of the medicine units. Fall rates and fall with injury rates were evaluated on both units.
RESULTS: During Phase 2, the designated evaluation unit had 14 falls, for a fall rate of 2.22 per 1,000 patient-days-a 54.1% reduction compared with the Phase 1 fall rate. The difference in rates from Phase 1 to Phase 2 was statistically significant (z = 2.20; p = 0.0297). The comparison medicine unit had 30 falls-a fall rate of 4.69 per 1,000 patient-days, representing a 57.9% increase as compared with Phase 1.
CONCLUSION: A fall detection sensor system affords a level of surveillance that standard fall alert systems do not have. Fall prevention remains a complex issue, but sensor technology is a viable fall prevention option.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app